By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:

Trackback:

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Post Icons

You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

No icon

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the'Submit Reply' button below

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the'Submit Reply' button below

Topic Review (Newest First)

09-20-2011 07:07 PM

peterchech

I have no sympathy for these pirates, at all. But comparing going after them to nagasaki is apples and oranges. "Strategic bombing" against civilians is and was always wrong. I don't see how you can justify fire bombing cities in Japan and Germany, burning thousands of civilians, women and children and elderly and all, to death. Even if the other side did it first.

07-06-2011 06:23 AM

downeast450

sea-whiz!

It seems like the Somali situation, and I expect soon to include the entire coast in that region, is a perfect opportunity for armed decoys to create a bit of uncertainty for the pirates who so easily pray on unarmed vessels. Rotating a few ARMED!! ships and imposter yachts through the regions of risk that would invite attack with lethal consequences to all attackers, might reduce the threat? If a CIWS - pronounced "sea-whiz", popped up to deal with a pirate threat from time to time the word would get back to the rest of the opportunists.

Down

Down

06-20-2011 10:14 PM

blackjenner

I may have said this before. I can fully understand why a criminal may choose the acts they do. I may have full knowledge of their justification/reasons/excuses for harming others. The key here is "harming others." The crucial factor is that they harm others *who are bringing no harm to them*.

I am a peaceful person by nature but, I have no problem using the full force of my intent, my training, and my experience to do grave violence against those intent on harming me, mine, or an innocent.

If that seems in conflict with my claim of being a peaceful person, perhaps a study of what a warrior can be, is in order.

06-20-2011 09:26 PM

VetMike

The Geneva Conventions and Protocols (four Conventions and three Protocols) address the treatment of civilians, medical and religious personnel and other non-combatants as well as the treatment of prisoners of war and the wounded. Protocol I addresses how guerrilla fighters must identify themselves and states that they must be under a central command to qualify for protection under the provisions of Protocol I. Nothing in the Conventions or Protocols would prevent a civilian ship from using force to protect itself and the Somali pirates would not fit the definition of guerrilla fighters under Protocol I. What little government Somalia has is responsible for controlling acts of piracy out to the international limits of 12 miles. Beyond that is international waters and thus the joint responsibility of all seafaring nations.

06-20-2011 08:53 PM

VetMike

Tager, my sympathy is reserved for the people the pirates have killed and for the people currently held for ransom. Your sympathy for people who have no sympathy for you or anyone else is, I believe, misplaced and possibly dangerous in that it may actually encourage this type of behavior. I was in the Army for 20 years and accepted the fact that I might have to kill someone. I also accepted the fact that people would be very uncomfortable with that fact and that I and my fellow soldiers may be shunned for the fact that we had killed. Many people are very uncomfortable with the idea of killing another person and that is okay. Until the pirates are climbing aboard your boat or the home invaders are kicking in your door. Will your tune change then?

05-24-2011 06:40 PM

BentSailor

That would not surprise me, insurance companies are as risk averse as they come (having to pay for the follies of the insured). My understanding is that a majority of pirate ransoms are paid by said insurance companies where it is cheaper to pay off the pirates short-term than to lose the ship, it's freight, and pay out the life insurance of the crew.

Still would appreciate anyone knowing one way or the other. Been caught out before with something that "sounded true", only for it to be urban legend

05-24-2011 10:04 AM

erps

I heard something similar, although I heard it was the insurance companies for merchant ships that prohibited it.

05-24-2011 03:31 AM

BentSailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omatako

There is some complication, I believe it is to do with the Geneva Convention (not sure) that prohibits merchant ships from arming themselves.

This is an interesting piece of info. Does anyone know if this is true? I'm not casting doubt, it's just I've never heard it clarified one way or the other (though a few people I've talked to believe it to be).

05-24-2011 02:55 AM

Omatako

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Surely if all the Somalian coastline can't be patrolled, the best approach is to protect individual ships? By that I mean put teams of marines or the coalition equivalent on random ships - once a few ships have fought back the pirates might start thinking about another profession.

There is some complication, I believe it is to do with the Geneva Convention (not sure) that prohibits merchant ships from arming themselves.

05-23-2011 05:42 PM

MarkSF

Surely if all the Somalian coastline can't be patrolled, the best approach is to protect individual ships? By that I mean put teams of marines or the coalition equivalent on random ships - once a few ships have fought back the pirates might start thinking about another profession.

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.